Raghuveer vs Mahila Sundrobai and Another

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhind in Cri. Rev. No. 205/2009. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No. 1 has filed a private complaint against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner. The petitioner has married with respondent No. 2, who gave birth to his son. After filing the complaint the statements u/s 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded. The case was registered against the petitioner and respondent No. 2. They have appeared before the Court and were released on bail. The evidence before charge was recorded. Thereafter, charge u/s 494 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved Cri. Rev. No. 205/2009 was preferred, which has been dismissed vide order dated 15.4.2010. Being aggrieved this petition has been filed.

It is submitted that the order passed by learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhind, is illegal and liable to be set aside. The learned Court below has committed illegality in passing the impugned order because Sundrobai (PW-1), Charan Singh (PW-2), Vidyapati (PW-3) and Janak Singh (PW-4) have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that marriage of Munnidevi has not been performed by observing the Saptpadi. It is prayed that impugned order be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has contended that prima facie there is sufficient material to frame the charge, therefore, no interference is required.

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties record is perused. As per the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 the petitioner has married with respondent No. 1. During the life time of the respondent No. 1 the petitioner has married with Munnidevi. He has opened an account in the Central Bank of India, Gormi Branch in favour of Munnidevi and Dharmendra and mentioned his name as father of Dharmendra. From perusal of the copy of the statement of Sundrobai it appears that she has stated the aforesaid fact on oath in her statement. Charan Singh, Vidyapati and Janak Singh have corroborated the statement of Sundrobai. However, Sundrobai in para 2 has categorically admitted that Raghuveer has not married with Munnidevi but keeping her as concubine. Charan Singh (PW-2) has also admitted that marriage of Raghuveer with Munnidevi has not been performed in his presence. He further admitted that Munnidevi is married with Munshilal and she has two sons from Munshilal. Vidya Ram has admitted that Saptpadi has not been observed in second marriage of Raghuveer. Similarly Janak Singh has also said so in para 2 of his cross-examination. As per Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu marriage can be solemnized in accordance with the customs, rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. It further provides that where such rites and ceremonies including the Saptpadi (taking seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. It is, therefore, essential that marriage should be proved to have been taken place and the essential ceremonies constituting the same have gone through. The witnesses have admitted that no Saptpadi was performed and complainant herself categorically admits that petitioner has not married with Munnidevi, but keeping Munnidevi as concubine. In such circumstances the offence of bigamy u/s 494 of IPC cannot be said to be made out.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Santi Deb Berma Vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi, , has held that where performance of Saptpadi ceremony is not proved, such second marriage cannot be held to be valid and offence u/s 494 of IPC is not made out. 7. In view of the statements of the complainant and Charan Singh (PW-2), Vidyapati (PW-3) and Janak Singh (PW-4) prima facie the offence u/s 494 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order and the charges framed against petitioner and respondent No. 2 are hereby quashed.